> Why the hell would I branch more? Just to get better at git? Sorry, I'm sorry that I work on a small team! Maybe I should go back to CVS?

I have multiple branches on the go in a one-person project. I find that very useful. But if you don't, maybe you should go back to SVN? Using git without merging between branches seems like you're making your life complicated for no gain - like using a distributed system framework to run a single-node system.

I have multiple branches, we use gitflow (well modified). This isn't about branching, it's about what happens in the edge cases and how difficult git is when things go wrong.

The comment I'm replying to said "branch more" as if that would solve some kind of problem with edge case complexity.

That comment likely assumed merging between branches was the "edge case" you were hitting; the general principle - do whatever it is more often, so that the edge case becomes routine - is sound. I found gitflow horrendously overcomplicated so I can imagine it might introduce some edge cases, but I'm honestly struggling to think what they might be - in my experience as long as you never rebase/cherry-pick/squash, frequently have parallel branches, never rebase/cherry-pick/squash, and frequently merge, there aren't actually any edge cases in git - as long as you remember to never rebase/cherry-pick/squash.

This is just retarded.

You don't want branching and you still think git is the tool for you? Compared to say svn?

Honestly, use svn, its the better tool for your use case.

You don't have to use git.

Don't gaslight me by saying you don't need gits main feature and then suggest I'm gstekeeping, I'm not, youre welcome to use git, just don't complain about your lack of ability to RTFM.

Nice ableist slur, on brand.

I use a modified gitflow. The article and this thread are about how when you get into trouble, git quickly becomes complicated. It’s not about branching being too hard or whatever you turned this conversation into in your head.